Top restaurateurs duke it out in Cinci legal battle

[Robin Garr]

Things are getting a little hot on the dining scene in our upriver neighbor, according to this post by the Cincy Enquirer's restaurant critic and food writer on her blog, Campbell's Soup, on Cincinnati.com. It's surprising how often restaurant ownership and management gets into wrangles, legal and otherwise. It doesn't always hit the media in this much detail.

I'm in favor of lots of sunlight when it comes to coverning the people's government. But how about business disputes like this, where publicity may be damaging to popular restaurants? Is shedding light worthwhile?

Wade v DeCavel

The Business Courier reported today that Martin Wade, who owns the Relish Group of restaurants, has sent JeanRobert de Cavel a letter reminding him of a non-compete agreement he signed.

I confirmed the story with Wade. According to him, deCavel agreed that he wouldn't open a restaurant within a 120-mile radius for a year after leaving the group (which used to be called the JeanRobert French Retaurant Group. Wade says the year hasn't even started yet, because the partnership was never completely dissolved. DeCavel's name is still on the liquor licenses, and so, says Wade, the chef still owns 20% of JeanRo Bistro, Local 127, Greenup Cafe and Chalk.

"How can I move on if he's still part owner?" he said, and pointed out that deCavel's new restaurant is opening as direct competition. "His restaurant is right in between two of mine: his address is 713 Vine. Ours are 413 Vine and 1211 Vine." Plus he plans to open December 1, right at the beginning of the holiday season.

He says the dispute could end up in court. "It's a terrible shame."

DeCavel says he's disappointed that Wade took this dispute public, that he would rather it was handled by their lawyers. "We should be willing to work these things through ourselves instead of in public."

Full article and links on Campbell's Soup blog:
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/dining/2009 ... v-decavel/

Hmmm. Pretty interesting stuff. Kind of reminds me of the Jicama Grill drama we had here locally a few years back. A no-compete clause is kind of strange in the foodservice industry, as chefs move around with great frequency. In this case, it's even stranger because I'm certain that a large portion of the investment capital was provided by Chef JeanRobert, and he seems like he just walked away from it. And now his investment partner is worried that his business will suffer because the most respected chef in Cincinnati for the past 15 years or so is hanging out his own shingle again; In close proximity to their joint effort. I'm very curious to see how this all plays out.
I'm sure it will prove to be more interesting than Rocco's reality show "The Restaurant"

I don't know that I'd use the term "shedding light," Robin. From the sound of it, one of the aggrieved parties decided to air their dirty laundry. From the Bizjournal article it sounds like Wade spilled the beans to them about the dispute.

As for the wrangles of restaurant management, I wonder if that has more to do with loosely defined partnerships? When they work well they're great, but when they don't they can end up like a rancorous divorce.

Hmmm...w/o having read the terms of their partnership agreement, if (according to Mr. Wade) it has not been legally dissolved yet, is Wade (under the terms of their agreement) conversely a partner in the NEW restaurants opened by Chef Jean Robert??

Hrm, has Ohio had any rulings on noncompetes? I know out in Cali the state supreme court threw out a couple different types back around 2000.

Hrm, has Ohio had any rulings on noncompetes? I know out in Cali the state supreme court threw out a couple different types back around 2000.

I'm not very familiar w/Ohio law, but non-competes are not inherently invalid under contract law...whether they are excised from a contractual agreement is often determined by the scope and terms of the non-compete clause and its effect on the party's ability to make a reasonable living..."reasonableness of the terms" (whatever that means) is the usual standard in determining whether a non-compete is valid...regarding the situation up in Cincy, prohibiting Chef Jean Robert from opening a restaurant within a 120-MILE radius of Wade's restaurants for one-year seems a little extreme (akin to Wade prohibiting Chef from opening a restaurant in Dayton, Columbus -- or even Louisville and Indy)...what realistic effect would that have on Wade's business? Then again, Chef apparently agreed to those terms, so unless he can argue a valid defense to contract formation, he may be stuck with it....stay tuned.

Non-competes are routinely upheld as enforceable by courts so long as they are reasonable in duration, distance and description of business activity prohibited. The 120 miles of this one seems a bit unreasonable because it would preclude other markets like Louisville and Columbus Ohio that do not compete with Cincinnati.

Also, Jean Robert did not put up a significant portion of the capital investment in the partnership with the Wades. The Wades are very very rich. They were the money people.

Non-competes are routinely upheld as enforceable by courts so long as they are reasonable in duration, distance and description of business activity prohibited. The 120 miles of this one seems a bit unreasonable because it would preclude other markets like Louisville and Columbus Ohio that do not compete with Cincinnati.

Also, Jean Robert did not put up a significant portion of the capital investment in the partnership with the Wades. The Wades are very very rich. They were the money people.

HEY ... who said Ron Johnson had disappeared??????????????